LAT 'fully retracts' Tupac story

[buckweaver]

Ouch. Lots of links here: http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2008/04/la_times_fully_retracts_t.php

One of the paper's most newsworthy retractions ever is front and center tonight at LATimes.com, for Monday's paper:

An article and related materials published on the Los Angeles Times website on March 17 have been removed from the site because they relied heavily on information that The Times no longer believes to be credible.

The article, titled "An Attack on Tupac Shakur Launched a Hip-Hop War" and written by Times staff writer Chuck Philips, purported to relate "new" information about a 1994 assault on rap star Tupac Shakur, including a description of events contained in FBI reports.

The Times has since concluded that the FBI reports were fabricated and that some of the other sources relied on -- including the person Philips previously believed to be the "confidential source" cited in the FBI reports -- do not support major elements of the story.

Consequently, The Times is retracting the March 17 Web publications as well as a shorter version of the article that appeared on Page E1 in the March 19 Calendar section of the newspaper. Statements that Philips made in two online chats, on March 18 and 25, and on The Times' Soundboard blog on March 21 also are being retracted.

 

[Magnum]

They've had some high-profile fork-ups lately. Between this and Bonds, I don't believe their story about Favre looking for a new team.

 

[Bob Sakamano]

They've had some high-profile fork-ups lately. Between this and Bonds, I don't believe their story about Favre looking for a new team.

I've never understood this mentality. What in the world does Sam Farmer and the relationships he has with his sources have to do with a news side fork-up involving Tupac? Sam is a good reporter. I understand the perception in the general public is a negative reflection on the Times, but I think journalists who understand how the process works should know better than to judge an individual reporter based on a completely unrelated fork-up that he had nothing to do with.

 

[Magnum]

They've had some high-profile fork-ups lately. Between this and Bonds, I don't believe their story about Favre looking for a new team.

I've never understood this mentality. What in the world does Sam Farmer and the relationships he has with his sources have to do with a news side fork-up involving Tupac? Sam is a good reporter. I understand the perception in the general public is a negative reflection on the Times, but I think journalists who understand how the process works should know better than to judge an individual reporter based on a completely unrelated fork-up that he had nothing to do with.

Favre's reaction played a big factor in how I judged the credibility of the story. I also can't help but notice that the Times is taking a lot of risks in their reporting of anonymous sources lately.

It's all relative. If the editors aren't going to keep the reporting of anonymous sources to a certain standard, this shirt becomes an epidemic throughout the newsroom.

 

[Point of Order]

Well, the deal is that if an organization messes up and doesn't come forward with a complete retraction in a strong and unequivocal manner, then the organization lacks credibility and is not to be believed. On the other hand, if an organization messes up and and comes forward with complete retraction in a strong and unequivocal manner, then by acknowledging the mistake, the organization provides evidence that it has been wrong in the past, and therefore lacks credibility and is not to be believed. Thus, trust no one.

 

[forever_town]

That's the thing, Bob. The way I interpret Magnum's quote, the fork up over the Tupac story calls EVERYTHING The Los Angeles Times does into question, even if Sam Farmer's prior work is beyond reproach.

How many more times are we going to see major fork ups on the parts of newspapers before the bean counters get the idea that doing more with less is a fantasy? Or will they never get it?

 

[Bob Sakamano]

Favre's reaction played a big factor in how I judged the credibility of the story. I also can't help but notice that the Times is taking a lot of risks in their reporting of anonymous sources lately.

It's all relative. If the editors aren't going to keep the reporting of anonymous sources to a certain standard, this shirt becomes an epidemic throughout the newsroom.

I'm not sure how Favre's reaction would show much of anything. If you read the story, the allegation is that Favre's agent had quietly inquired about the possibility, not Favre himself. The story directly says that sources didn't indicate whether Favre knew.

I agree that there's too much reliance on anonymous sources in a lot of newsrooms, and I don't think the LAT is alone in that. I also don't think there's the degree of communication between sports and news to the extent that a reporter like Sam Farmer would be influenced by the editors and reporters who led the Tupac gaffe. In giant newsrooms like that, I think it's a mistake to make sweeping generalizations of all departments. Just my take, of course.

 

[PHINJ]

The bean counters don't have anything to do with this one. All of the blame is on Mr. Pulitzer Prize winner and the Times' crack editing staff.

 

[forever_town]

The bean counters don't have anything to do with this one. All of the blame is on Mr. Pulitzer Prize winner and the Times' crack editing staff.

The way the bean counters continually slash staffs, it makes it much harder than necessary to do the due diligence a story needs.